rayray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/1841/1/jss accepted article.pdfrationalism has historically not...
TRANSCRIPT
Walton, Joan (2017) The significance of consciousness studies and quantum physics for creating a spiritual research paradigm. Journal for the Study of Spirituality, 7 (1). pp. 21-34.
Downloaded from: http://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/1841/
The version presented here may differ from the published version or version of record. If
you intend to cite from the work you are advised to consult the publisher's version:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20440243.2017.1290029
Research at York St John (RaY) is an institutional repository. It supports the principles of
open access by making the research outputs of the University available in digital form.
Copyright of the items stored in RaY reside with the authors and/or other copyright
owners. Users may access full text items free of charge, and may download a copy for
private study or non-commercial research. For further reuse terms, see licence terms
governing individual outputs. Institutional Repository Policy Statement
RaYResearch at the University of York St John
For more information please contact RaY at [email protected]
The significance of consciousness studies and quantum physics for researching
spirituality
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to argue that researchers interested in studying spirituality may
benefit from paying attention to the phenomenon of consciousness. Despite consciousness
being integral to human experience, it is largely ignored in research into spirituality. Yet
there is evidence to suggest that the study of spirituality, and explorations of consciousness,
have much to offer each other. My contention is that the subject of consciousness has not
received much attention within mainstream social and educational research, due to the
prevailing, often unconscious, influence of Newtonian science, which assumes consciousness
to be an epiphenomenon of the brain. However developments in science, particularly in
quantum physics, have shown that the world cannot be explained by Newtonian principles of
separation and atomism. At the same time, a growing disillusionment with science has
resulted in the emergence of a grassroots spirituality which challenges a materialist scientific
paradigm. In science and spirituality, there is an increasing realisation of the
interconnectedness of everything, with the quantum principle of ‘entanglement’ suggesting
that differentiation between ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’ is an artificial one. Instead there is
a meaningful relationship between experiences of consciousness in inner and outer worlds,
with neither existing independently of the other. I conclude by presenting a case for
developing research methods which reflect a secular spiritual world view that creates
harmony between science, spirituality and our experience of consciousness.
Keywords: Secular spirituality, consciousness, quantum physics, entanglement, ontology,
epistemology.
Introduction
Daniel Boorstin (1985:xv) contends that it is “illusions of knowledge”, not mere ignorance,
which have always presented the greatest obstacles to scientific discovery. The claim I make
in this paper is that the illusion of knowledge which has traditionally dominated academic
research is the ontological assumption that matter is the primary constituent of the universe. I
argue that this due to the legacy of classical Newtonian science, which instilled a materialist
worldview into western culture. This worldview perceives subjective experiences of
2
consciousness to have emerged from matter at a late stage of a physical evolutionary process,
and hence is not of ontological significance (Wallace 2010).
3
However, developments in quantum physics and studies of consciousness challenge this
scientific paradigm in ways which may be of interest for those researching spirituality from
either an academic or an experiential perspective. Although Tacey states that ‘spirituality is
by no means incompatible with religion, but it is existential rather than creedal’ (2004:8),
spirituality and religion have often been conflated; and because the world of scientific
rationalism has historically not allowed for the existence of ‘God’ or for any transcendent
reality, explanations for both religious and spiritual experiences are often claimed to be
explainable through observing neuronal activity in the brain (Dawkins 2008, Hitchens 2007,
Dennet 2007).
There is, though, a different worldview emerging from quantum physics (Wheeler 1994), and
from a revisiting of spiritual traditions (De Quincey 2005): which is that consciousness, not
matter, is the primary ‘stuff’ of the universe. That is, there is a universal Consciousness that
is the source of our individual experiences; and, as the radio is the receiver rather than the
originator of programmes, so the brain is the receiver of a universal Consciousness (Kelly et
al 2015).
One implication of reclaiming the primacy of consciousness is that it affirms the possibility
that our spiritual experiences may be manifestations of a reality whose source exists beyond
matter. Studying the nature of this reality, which may be as infinite and timeless as the
external cosmos, opens up the need for faculties other than our five senses, such as
introspection and intuition, to be accepted as valid and meaningful methods of academic
research (Wallace 2010).
In this paper, I explore what an investigation into both consciousness and quantum physics
has to offer the study of spirituality; and discuss the development of research methods based
on an ontology of a secular spirituality (Walach 2015) which would encourage researchers to
explore in greater depth the nature of inner worlds, as a complementary and mutually
influencing dimension of their exploration of external worlds.
The enduring influence of Newtonian Science on social and educational research
The main purpose of this section is to consider, from the perspective of an academic in a
university School of Education, the historical influences on the development of research in
4
the western world, with specific reference to the shifts in significance accorded to religion
and spirituality.
For many centuries, following the life of Christ, the Bible was claimed to be the source of
truth in the western world. During this time, the existence of a transcendent reality was
accepted in the form of a divine God, creator of all living beings (Armstrong 1993).
However the advent of science, with its methods of enquiry grounded in that which could be
observed and measured, presented a major challenge to the faith-based nature of knowledge
asserted by religious institutions. The work of Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727) in mathematics,
optics and physics laid the foundations for what was seen to be appropriate methods for
scientific inquiry. This was accompanied by an increasing realisation that there was no
tangible evidence to prove the existence of a transcendent deity; and considerable evidence to
support the view that the universe was made of matter, with every object reducible to
elementary particles. Newtonian science viewed the universe to be operating as a machine
where, however complex the final structure, its workings were always to be understood in
terms of the interaction of its material parts.
Further, classical Newtonian science claimed that there were laws built into the creation of
the universe which controlled how these parts related to each other. The ‘initial conditions’,
which determined these laws, were present as an integral aspect of the original creation of the
universe. The aim of science was to discover what these pre-existing laws were, through
objective observation by an independent researcher, so that predictions could be made as to
what would happen under any particular set of circumstances.
Finally, there was only ‘one real world’, which could be observed and comprehended by
human beings through the five senses, and which was, in essence, physically measurable.
This led to the conviction that the experience of consciousness was an emergent property of
the brain, and hence was ultimately explainable by the same physical laws.
Because of the undoubted achievements of Newtonian science in generating knowledge about
the natural world, the assumptions and beliefs on which it was based contributed to the
creation of a positivist research paradigm. The researcher could gain knowledge using
empirical methods, and interpret information through reason and logic. Emphasis was placed
5
on the objectivity of the researcher, with outcomes not influenced by the presence of the
observer.
A major challenge to the positivist paradigm arose in response to the recognition that the
subjective experiences of both the researcher, and the individual being studied, could not be
directly observed, measured and quantified. An increasing number of people developed a
belief that it was not possible to identify a reality that existed independently of human
perception; and that which was perceived as ‘reality’ was in fact socially constructed (Burr
2003). Qualitative methodologies were created, based on a view that no researcher was able
to gain absolute truth due to the relativity of all truth positions.
In summary, then, in the Academy, two distinct ontologies – that of objectivism and social
constructivism - currently live together in a somewhat uncomfortable cohabitation, with
each of these ontologies providing a foundation for a number of epistemologies and
methodologies. It has been argued that the two ontological positions are mutually exclusive:
one supports the idea of an objective reality, the other denies that it is possible. The
methodologies associated with the first assume a world that can be broken down into
component parts, measured and analysed, with results supported by quantifiable and
verifiable evidence. Methodologies associated with the second aim to understand the social
and cultural factors that influence individual and social behaviour.
However, there is a major factor that allows these two ontologies to remain in an uneasy
truce; and that is their shared view on the role of consciousness in the universe. The
presupposition that consciousness is a property of the brain assumes that when the brain dies,
so does consciousness. The implication is, that if there were no living beings on this planet,
there would be no consciousness. This assumption is so powerful, that it is not seen to be a
necessary focus for discussion in academic research books. It is notable that in text books in
which different ontologies for different research paradigms are identified and discussed (e.g.
Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Bryman 2015), the issue of consciousness is not included. In
positivist research paradigms, the consciousness of the individual does not influence the
nature of that being researched. In interpretivist research paradigms, the subjective nature of
consciousness, and the influence of this subjectivity on perceptions of reality, are assumed.
However there is no debate about how consciousness is understood and defined. The
6
implication is that knowledge about consciousness is self-evident, and hence no analysis or
discussion is necessary.
Social constructivists, then, appear to have implicitly accepted the positivists’ assumption that
consciousness belongs to the brain, and has no wider existence. They take for granted that
the material world is ontologically primary, and the only question is whether the secondary
phenomenon of consciousness is capable of perceiving reality objectively, or whether each
person’s consciousness constructs reality in different and unique ways. The influence of
Newtonian science has been so powerful that a complete review of its ontological principles
has not been seen as necessary.
In the remainder of this paper, I challenge such a limited view of consciousness, and suggest
that the Academy, particularly those interested in spirituality, would benefit from exploring
new epistemologies and methodologies based on an alternative ontological perspective:
which is that consciousness is not merely a secondary property of the brain; but that it exists
prior to the brain and hence is primary, with matter being an emergent property of
consciousness; or alternatively it has equal and complementary significance as matter.
I draw on different sources to justify such an assertion: namely findings from quantum
physics; and current developments in the study of consciousness. Having demonstrated that
there is a strong case to support the idea that consciousness is a more significant and primary
constituent of reality, I argue for the value of developing a research paradigm based on a
spiritual worldview.
The rise of spirituality
The success of science resulted in a challenge to beliefs about a transcendent God, whose
existence was not provable using scientific criteria to produce valid evidence. Tacey tells the
story of the French scientist Laplace, who, when asked by Napoleon about the place of God
in the new scientific universe, replied: “I have no need of that hypothesis” (2004:154).
However, despite the hegemony of science, and its materialist assumptions, there has been a
growing interest in researching spirituality from the 1970’s till the present. Rousseau
7
(2012:2) reports that academic engagement with spirituality, which was minimal 40 years
ago, has now expanded rapidly across a range of disciplines. For example, PsycInfo, a data
base for peer-reviewed literature in behavioural science and mental health, recorded 48
articles being published from 1970-79, but 7985 publications from 2000-2009.
Forman (2004) was provided with a substantial grant by the Fetzer Institute to research and
describe the growth of the spirituality movement that was taking place at a grassroots level.
As a consequence of speaking to several hundred people who related in some way to the term
‘spiritual’, he was able to identify a wide range of explanations for the growth of this
phenomenon.
A major reason that was often cited was the feeling of disillusionment with science and
rationality. There was recognition that, prior to the advent of science, the dominant
worldview in western culture was that of a universe which had been created by a divine
being, who was the source of all truth. For the past four hundred years, though, the lack of
evidence to support this view had resulted in religious convictions being largely replaced by a
belief that the practice of science would result in all problems and existential questions being
understood and resolved (Forman 2004:126).
However, as time progressed, there was an increasing feeling that the ‘the scientific, rational
paradigm had “let us down”’ (ibid:126). One of the respondents stated:
We are slowly…beginning to understand that the rational consciousness…is an
evolutionary cul-de-sac, that our monochrome vision is at the root of many of
today’s countless social, economic, political and ecological problems (ibid:127).
Another expressed their view as follows:
The modern focus on objectivity and the separation of science and spirituality,
taken to fullness, leaves people separate from one another. Separate from nature,
and separate from the divine….Life in these times calls for an end to science as
the primary means of influence and an opening of the pathways of influence to
diverse ways of knowing (ibid: 128).
8
A further major reason discovered for the emergence of a grassroots spirituality was that,
despite the fact that individuals may have become disaffected by the doctrines and rituals of
different religions, they continued to have subjective experiences of a reality beyond the
material for which science had no explanation. For example, one respondent said:
Though when I entered college I fell way from the church, I had this inner sense
of something guiding me. The church as an institution wasn’t very important to
me. But this sense of something bigger guiding me was (ibid:35).
Many of those interviewed experienced spirituality as being relational in nature:
There is a connection between all things…Spirituality is an integrated,
interconnected combination of people and things that join in relationship to each
other to explore the gift of life (ibid:56).
Forman, in summarising the findings of the research, suggested that the rise of spirituality
was characterised by a sense of an ultimate being perceived as an ‘It’, which replaced the
idea of a ‘God-figure’ identified as a ‘He’ or ‘She’. This new perception of a divine Being
was:
..directly available to each and every mind and heart, no matter what social role
or station we enter or where we move….. “It” is more like a hidden water table
under us all that feeds and interconnects all of our wells than like a king high on
his distant throne (ibid: 208).
Perspectives on the nature of consciousness and spirit were also reflected on within the great
religious and spiritual traditions. Professor Ninian Smart, an academic with a lifelong
interest in religious traditions, noted a common thread running through different religions
which suggests there is an Ultimate being who exists beyond the cosmos, yet at the same
time, exists deep within our own consciousness. He thus believed that the acceptance of
religious experiences as ‘real’ rather than illusory, and exploring these experiences critically
from a subjective perspective, was one means of creating knowledge of who we are as human
beings experiencing consciousness. He stated: ‘Nature makes us and we make nature.
9
Religion can throw light on this mysterious middle role of consciousness in our cosmos’
(Smart 2000: 102).
Tacey contended that the constructed nature of scientific authority which ‘killed God off in
the first place’ (2004:155) had been exposed. A world with no place for a divine being turned
out to have no greater or less authority than the religious myth it sought to replace:
“Scientism is a myth too, a myth as pernicious as any other sort of fundamentalism’ (ibid:
155) However, reflecting Forman’s findings, he acknowledged that there needed to be a new
image of ‘God’, probably different to that put forward by any specific religion. Karen
Armstrong also recognised this:
Throughout history people have discarded a conception of God when it no
longer works for them (1993:408).
Tacey discovered that there were findings from science that encouraged a revisiting of
traditional spiritual perceptions:
Today, the new sciences, particularly theoretical physics…keep telling us that
there are no separate parts in the universe, that everything is in dynamic
relationship with everything else…..The ancient mystical systems have always
taught us that the world is a dynamic whole, that energies, vibrations, currents,
and forces bind everything together in an indivisible cosmos….Ironically it is
the sciences that are today making this recovery of the past and retrieval of
ancient wisdom possible (ibid:223).
Once the primacy of matter has been challenged, it encourages an exploration of the
relationship between physical and spiritual dimensions. As Christian De Quincey says:
Meaning, not mere mechanism, becomes the connection between beings;
synchronicity, not causality, patterns these meanings and connections –
and the cosmos as a whole resonates to the creative meaning of its own
never-ending story, a narrative of ensouled matter and embodied
experience, embracing the sublime paradox of “subjective objects”, of
multiplicity-in-unity (2002:263).
10
John Heron, echoing physicist John Wheeler (1994), has described in depth what he calls a
participatory worldview:
There is a given cosmos, a primordial reality, in which the mind actively
participates….. Mind and the given cosmos are engaged in a co-creative
dance, so that what emerges as reality is the fruit of an interaction of the
given cosmos and the way perceiving mind engages with it. Mind
actively participates in the cosmos, and it is through this active
participation that we meet what is other.
(Heron 1998: 236)
The main significance of these and other scientific findings for social and educational
research is to question the adequacy of either an objectivist or a social constructivist
ontology. The indication is that we need to develop a participatory spiritual worldview which
explicitly acknowledges the possibility that consciousness does not just reside in the brain;
and that our mental worlds may be equally real and complementary to the physical world in
ways that are not yet recognised or understood.
The significance of quantum physics
Quantum mechanics as a branch of physics has been in existence since the beginning of the
20th century, but its implications for our understanding of reality are as little understood now
as they were 100 years ago. Findings from quantum physics challenge many of the
assumptions underpinning traditional science, including its certainty that matter is the
primary constituent of the universe.
Quantum theory also challenges the view that an observer can exist independently of the
reality she is observing. In what was termed by Bohr (1928) as the ‘complementarity
principle’, reality could present both as particles and waves, with the nature of observation
determining which manifests at any point in time. The double slit experiment (see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho) shows that the consciousness of the
11
observer influences the behaviour of the photon, suggesting that the mental and physical
dimensions of reality are inextricably interconnected in as yet unexplainable ways.
Danah Zohar was an early writer in exploring the potential connections between quantum
physics and spirituality, introducing the concept of ‘Spiritual Intelligence’ (Zohar 2001). She
proposed a quantum mechanical model of the brain, which saw spiritual intelligence as
emerging from human expression of values, and a need for deep meaning and purpose in life.
O’Murchu, also interested in the spiritual implications of quantum physics, wrote:
Zohar works on the assumption that consciousness is a property of all living
systems and, in a quantum context, becomes the basis not merely for awareness,
but more recently for relationships, an innate potential for mutual cooperation
between all beings and systems within the one quantum universe.
(Murchu 2004: 36).
Zohar was particularly interested in the idea of nonlocality and entanglement, concepts used
to explain the process when two particles which have been together, and are subsequently
separated, continue to be instantaneously responsive to each other across space, in ways that
defy our conventional knowledge of how the world works (Aspect et al 1981; Mastin 2009).
It is as though each particle is experiencing a form of consciousness, and, having been in
relationship with the other, ‘knows’ what is happening and is responding accordingly; again,
to the complete mystification of traditional science. Zohar writes:
Quantum holism teaches us that there is no such thing as separation. Each of us
is ‘entangled’ with, part of and defined by everything else in the world. Each of
our thoughts, decisions and actions reverberates across the universe. Everything
that we do has consequences for the whole.
http://greatmystery.org/Faculty/DanahZohar.html
An increasing number of those learning about quantum physics became aware that the
experiments were producing findings that resonated more with spiritual traditions than with
classical science. Tarnas commented:
12
Matter’s former hard substantiality had given way to a reality perhaps
more conducive to a spiritual interpretation..…The principle of
complementarity governing waves and particles suggested its broader
application in a complementarity between mutually exclusive ways of
knowledge, like religion and science. Human consciousness, or at least
human observation and interpretation, seemed to be given a more central
role in the larger scheme of things with the new understanding of the
subject’s influence on the observed object. The deep interconnectedness
of phenomena encouraged a new holistic thinking about the world, with
many social, moral, and religious implications.
(Tarnas 1991: 357)
It seems, then, that there are scientists, philosophers, psychologists and spiritual thinkers who
consider there to be a reality that exists beyond the material; and yet the emphasis in
academic research is on research methodologies which assume a material basis to reality, and
do not question the nature and scope of consciousness. This is a gap in the research that I
suggest needs addressing.
The nature of consciousness
De Quincey says that consciousness is “our deepest mystery and our most intimate reality”
(2002:64). None of what we experience as human beings happens outside of consciousness;
and yet we know little about its nature or origins. Many have tried to understand it: the
experience of consciousness has attracted analysis throughout the intellectual history of the
western world. For example, Leibniz (1646-1716), a contemporary of Isaac Newton,
challenged the atomistic view of humanity:
Modern man has difficulty in regarding bodies as any more than dead mechanical extended
entities. For Leibniz such a view would be far too narrow....... There are other modes of
being besides matter: the immaterial or psychic, for example, and the spiritual. And in fact
spiritual being is more real and more forceful than matter."
(Hirschberger 2008:98-99).
13
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed the idea of ‘transcendental consciousness’, in which
he included the view that knowledge initially arises from intuitive sources; and William
James (1842-1910) explored in depth the phenomenon of consciousness, challenging the
materialist explanation for its existence.
Despite this longstanding interest in the possibility that consciousness may exist beyond
matter, this view made little impact on the developing scientific enterprise. However,
consciousness remains one of the areas that scientists have had least success in investigating.
Although we all experience it, it is remarkably problematic to agree a description. When
consulting dictionaries, there is a circularity of definition that leaves ultimate meaning
unexplained. For example, in the Oxford English Dictionary, the word consciousness is
defined as ‘the state or faculty of being conscious’; conscious is ‘having internal perceptions
or consciousness’; perception is ‘to become aware of, conscious of; and awareness is ‘the
quality or state of being aware; consciousness.
Guzeldere identifies the difficulties in forming a definition:
The phenomenon of consciousness does not have clear-cut boundaries, and its
complex structure does not admit any easy formulation. Even if it is in principle
possible to invent a ‘consciousness monitor,’ a device that would ‘detect’ the physical
signs of the presence of consciousness, no such technology is anywhere in sight, as it
is not even known what exactly is to be measured.
(Guzeldere 1995: 30-31)
In other words, scientists have no explanation for consciousness. They cannot differentiate
between the consciousness of an amoeba, a dog, or a human; nor have the means of telling
whether or not consciousness permeates a flower or a tree.
Robert Ornstein, an early writer on the science of consciousness, started his book The
Psychology of Consciousness with a story:
A man, having looted a city, tried to sell one of the spoils, an exquisite rug. “Who
will give me 100 gold pieces for this rug?” he cried throughout the town. After the
sale was completed, a comrade approached the seller, and asked, “Why did you not
14
ask more for that precious rug?” “Is there any number higher than 100?” asked the
seller?
(Ornstein 1986: vii)
He suggested that we make the same mistake as the rugseller in our conceptions of
consciousness: “We seem to set mental limits on the possible boundaries of our world and
work within these limits “(ibid: vii).
There is, though, an increasing awareness of a possible connection between an expanded
notion of consciousness, and spiritual experiences. For example, Professor Harald Walach,
one of a growing number of international academics who are interested in developing a post-
materialist science, has engaged in an extensive exploration of the relationship between
consciousness and spirituality. In the next section, I introduce Walach’s (2015) analysis of
different models of consciousness, which chart both historical and contemporary theories
about the relationship between consciousness and matter, and provides an argument to
support the idea of a secular spirituality.
A secular spirituality
Walach (2015: 71) identifies four models of consciousness: Materialism, Dualism, Idealism,
and Complementarity. Materialism is the ontology that I am claiming is dominant in
classical science, and in current social and educational research. To summarise, the core
belief is that there is only one basic entity in the universe, which is matter. This develops
over time, in ways that can be observed and theorised, leading to an ever-expanding body of
knowledge.
The second model, dualism, assumes that consciousness and matter are two different
substances that co-exist. Descartes, a leading philosopher in this worldview, saw ‘I’ as a
thinking and feeling being who was quite separate from the inanimate physical objects that
surrounded him. The main problem with dualism, as Walach clearly states, is that it ‘cannot
really make clear how different entities could interact in a rational and sufficiently intimate
way’ (2015:79).
15
Idealism is the view that consciousness is the primary property in the universe with matter
derived from consciousness. Such a view has been developed philosophically since the time
of Plato, with key exponents being Fichte and Hegel, and is currently being explored by
physicists and others in contemporary studies of consciousness (Goswami 2012, Stapp 2011,
Wallace 2010).
In the same way that materialism fails to explain how consciousness emerges from matter,
idealists have a similar problem as they are unable to explain how matter emerges from
consciousness. Given this equivalence in the nature of the challenge, though, and despite the
strongly expressed convictions of scientific materialists, there is no incontrovertible reason
why precedence should be given to materialism over idealism.
The argument I am making in this paper is that in social and educational research, equal
significance should be given to research that is based on the assumption that consciousness is
primary; and that in either implicitly or explicitly assuming the converse, we are artificially
limiting the development of productive research methodologies which would expand the
scope of the study of spirituality, trapped by an ‘illusion of knowledge’ (Boorstin 1985: xv).
Walach establishes a fourth model, which he terms ‘complementarity’, taken from quantum
physics and used by Niels Bohr (1928) to describe the duality of particles and waves, as
explained earlier in this paper. Walach stresses that in quantum physics, ‘in order to explain
reality, one had to use two mutually exclusive, maximally incompatible descriptions for one
and the same thing’ (2015: 80, emphasis in original). He is proposing that the notion of
complementarity, which is a qualitatively new way of describing reality that has not yet
reached many parts of academic research, could be a useful way of understanding
consciousness and the brain.
In terms of a model of reality, Walach perceives this as ‘an ontological monism that
simultaneously allows for phenomenological dualism regarding the experiences in our
phenomenal world’ (ibid: 81). In other words, phenomenological experiences of mind and
matter could be complementary aspects of one underlying reality; a reality that would need to
be conceptualised in a very different way to our contemporary taken-for-granted view of
matter.
16
This approach, then, would see inner phenomenological experiences, and our perceptions of
the external world based on our senses, as being complementary representations of the same
reality, with neither having more significance than the other. The implication of this is that,
in order to gain full knowledge of our existence, an exploration of inner reality is as
important as information gained from our outer experience.
Inner experiences include those which are mystical and spiritual in nature. A materialist
ontology would perceive such experiences as delusional; however, an ontology which
recognised the principle of complementarity would accept them as providing data about an
aspect of reality that has so far been neglected within social and educational research. In
developing a methodology to study both aspects of reality, William James’ (1912) notion of
radical empiricism may help to guide the research; that is, nothing should be included which
is not directly experienced; nor anything excluded which is directly experienced.
Kelly (2015), Research Professor at the University of Virginia, provides an ontological
perspective that offers the possibility of integrating a relativist viewpoint with the notion of
one underlying reality which may only be sensed through the most profound inner
experiences. He suggests there may be properties inherent in our cosmos that are present at
the deepest levels of human nature, and can be directly accessed through mystical
experiences and radically creative enterprises.
In our view the mystical domain is best conceived as stratified in depth, with constructivist-
type influences predominating at the ‘shallow’ end, but diminishing in importance as we
progress toward a ‘deep’ end populated increasingly by experiences approaching (mystical
experiences).
(Kelly 2015: xix)
In discussing ideas about spirituality, it is important to note that the academic research
literature is not devoid of studies which inquire into people’s interest and experiences in the
spiritual and the mystical; but they are usually about spiritual beliefs and experiences, mainly
those of people other than the researcher. Such research is not grounded in an ontology that
accepts inner worlds and intimations of spirituality to be representations of a consciousness
that is of equal ontological significance to the physical world. Much of the research focuses
17
on the nature and consequence of spiritual beliefs in others. For example, Forman’s (2004)
work, cited in this paper, surveyed changes in spiritual viewpoints; Andresen and Forman
(2000) drew on neuroscience to create cognitive models describing the effects of meditation;
and Koenig (2012) investigated the impact of spiritual beliefs on both mental and physical
health.
Although growing attention is being paid, by a number of academic disciplines, to the
pervasiveness of spiritual beliefs and practices, there is no comparable attempt to investigate
the validity of the ontological foundations of the beliefs being researched. As commented on
earlier in this paper, this absence is evident when looking at mainstream research
methodology textbooks in education and the human sciences, which include an overview of
different research paradigms (e.g. Bryman 2016, Denzin & Lincoln 2011; Denzin & Giardina
2015; Cohen et al. 2013). None of these textbooks include an ontology that recognises
spirituality or consciousness as either a primary element of the universe, or as in a
complementary duality with matter. In other words, in the academic world, the idea that
there might be a reality that exists independently of human life, and which can be accessed
internally as well as externally, has largely been omitted from consideration; and certainly
does not have equal status to research which assumes primacy of the physical world.
On the margins of academic research, though, there are signs that the hegemony of
materialism is being challenged, with an opening up to scrutiny of its ontological
assumptions. This is being accompanied by a recognition of the value of researchers
engaging experientially with their own inner experiences, willing to explore the hypothesis
that their internal world is as vast and worthy of exploration as is the physical world.
In the following section, three different methods are outlined: intuitive inquiry informed by
transpersonal psychology; a ‘spiritual science’; and the bringing together of science and
Buddhist meditation to create a contemplative science.
Epistemological and methodological approaches to explore the inner world
Coming from a transpersonal perspective, Anderson and Braud (2011) make a significant
contribution to the development of research methods which include inner experiences not
18
observable by an external observer. Although they do not explicitly explore the ontological
basis of their work, they communicate an approach to research based on a deep
interconnectedness between the individual, the collective and the global, as evidenced not
only by quantum physics, but also by diverse wisdom traditions (2011: 303). They contend
that research, which gives equal precedence to internal worlds, is potentially transformative
for all actively involved in the research process, experienced through increased self-
awareness, enhanced psycho-spiritual development, and a qualitative shift in worldview.
Such transformative shifts can be recognised by “changes in one’s body, feelings and
emotions, ways of thinking, forms of expressions, and relationships with others and with the
world” (ibid, p. xvii).
An example of one methodology they advocate is ‘intuitive inquiry’, which is based on the
belief that there are “direct and embodied ways of knowing” (ibid, 20) which are felt before
coming to any intellectual interpretation of what has happened. There is a recognition that
some kind of lived experience takes place before the rational mind takes over, and that it is
important to connect with that initial perception. The contention is that with practice,
individuals can learn to witness these perceptions, and integrate them with other ways of
knowing. They argue that intuitive perception can help achieve richer forms of understanding
when used to complement processes such as analytical reasoning and information gained
from the conventional five senses.
There is, of course, the challenge of how such an individualised, interior view of knowing can
generate knowledge that is valid for all individuals experiencing and inquiring into
consciousness. Hart et al support the idea of the importance of intersubjective sharing and
learning:
A dialogue among those who access the interior view is essential for the
ongoing revisioning of the external standards that the changing
manifestations of knowing call for. Such a dialogue can also facilitate
access to, and encourage people who trust and give voice to, their own
knowing (ibid: 4).
19
In the same book, Donald Rothberg considers the idea of a ‘spiritual science’, and introduces
a number of methods of spiritual inquiry. One of these is what he calls ‘systematic
contemplation’. This is a process whereby:
The inquirer cultivates the ability to be ‘present’ with the phenomena of
human experience in their breadth and depth, often in a primarily
nondiscursive way, and commonly uses exercises and conceptual models
to help initially access particular dimensions of experience. This
contemplative process purportedly gives insight into the surface patterns
and deeper nature of these phenomena, and potentially opens up
awareness to the most fundamental spiritual insight, however this is
understood (Rothberg: 2000:166).
This is a method that has been developed extensively by Dr Alan Wallace, within the
Buddhist traditions. Wallace is an American scholar who has an academic background in
both physics and in Buddhism. An experienced meditator, who has engaged in many
dialogues with the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist scholars and monks, he has written
extensively on the merits of expanding the rigorous methods of science to include the
learning about reality gained by Buddhist meditators. In the process of his own enquiries,
Wallace has developed a special theory of ‘ontological relativity’ (2010: 50). With the
explicit aim of bridging the gap between science and the spiritual, he suggests that mental
phenomena, although conditioned by the brain, do not emerge from it. Rather, similar to
Walach’s (2015) idea of complementarity, he sees mind and matter, consciousness and the
brain, subject and object, as arising from a unitary dimension of reality that is more
fundamental than any of these dualities.
To test his hypothesis, Wallace engaged over long periods of time in meditative practice as a
technique for refining his attention and metacognition, creating the conditions necessary to
examine the internal space of his mind. In a number of his publications (e.g. 2013, 2010,
2003), Wallace provides theoretical and practical guidance for bringing together the insights
of contemporary physicists and philosophers, and the meditative traditions of Buddhism, to
create a contemplative science that enables enquirers to observe mental phenomena, and
explore the deeper reaches of the mind.
20
Conclusion
In this paper, I have been explaining the historical context which has led to the present
position, where mainstream social and educational research in universities is informed, either
explicitly or implicitly, by a materialist worldview, which assumes a person’s spiritual and
mystical experiences to be ontologically irrelevant. What is absent is a consideration that
there may be an alternative way to view reality, but that, like the parable of the blind men
who each touch a different part of an elephant, different people have differing experiences of
what that reality is like.
When considering the story of the blind men, we may agree that their perceptions of what
they are touching are relative, with no one of them having access to the truth of what is
happening. However if they are able to find methods of curing their blindness, or if a person
who is not blind arrives on the scene, then a more comprehensive understanding of the
elephant will emerge.
The main point of making this analogy is to propose that we as human beings suffer from
limitations in perspective, which create barriers when seeking to understand the nature of
reality in its totality. Because we are not, at least at this stage of our evolutionary process,
able to discover truth in its entirety, it does not mean that there is no absolute truth to be
discovered. However if we are to move closer to that truth, it is important that we do not
artificially limit our perspectives.
In social and educational research, a subjective dimension of qualitative research is
acknowledged. What is missing, though, is a widespread interest in a structured and rigorous
inquiry into the ontological reality of subjective spiritual experiences. I have argued that this
omission is the consequence of the dominant intellectual paradigm which does not adequately
challenge the view that neuronal activity of the brain is responsible for our experience of
consciousness, and hence for all spiritual experiences.
Findings from quantum physics provide powerful evidence of the pervasiveness and
significance of consciousness, leaving no justification to confine ourselves to research
21
paradigms based on materialist assumptions. In these times of immeasurable global dangers,
we need to open up our minds to greater possibilities, and be prepared to explore ourselves
and our experiences from every conceivable perspective.
In this paper, I have presented a case to support the suggestion that there would be value in
academics and professionals working together to develop a spiritual research paradigm which
includes a more active and primary role for consciousness. This in turn would provide a
basis for re-examining the nature and significance of all spiritual experiences, allowing for
the possibility that they may connect with, and potentially draw on, deeper sources of an
intangible secular spiritual reality.
22
References
Anderson, R. and Braud, W. (2011) Transforming Self and Others through Research. New
York, Suny.
Andresen, J. and Forman, R.K. (2000) Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps:
Interdisciplinary Explorations of Religious Experience Imprint Academic.
Armstrong, K. (1999) A History of God, London: Vintage.
Aspect, A., Grangier, P. and Roger, G. (1981) Experimental tests of realistic local theories via
Bell's theorem. Physical Review Letters, 47 (7), pp.460.
Bohr, N. (1928) The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory,
Great Britain: R. & R. Clarke, Limited.
Boorstin, D. (1985) The Disoverers: A History of Man's Search to Know His World and
Himself. New York, Vintage.
Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism, Second edition, London: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2015) Social Research Methods Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2013) Research Methods in Education Routledge.
Dawkins, R. (2008) The God Delusion Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
De Quincey, C. (2002) Radical Nature: Rediscovering the Soul of Matter, Rochester: Park
Street Press.
De Quincey, C. (2005) Radical Knowing, Vermont: Park Street Press.
Dennett, D.C. (2007) Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, London:
Penguin Books.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2011) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Fourth
Edition. Sage.
Forman, R.K. (2004) Grassroots Spirituality: What it is, Why it is here, Where it is Going
Imprint Academic.
Goswami, A. (2012) God is Not Dead : What Quantum Physics Tells Us about our Origins
and how we should Live Va. : Hampton Roads ; London.
Guzeldere, G. (1995) Consciousness: what it is, how to study it, what to learn from its history.
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2 (1), pp.30-51.
23
Hart, T., Nelson, P., & Puhakka, K. (2000) Transpersonal Knowing: Exploring the Horizons
of Consciousness, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Heron, J. (1998) Sacred Science: Person-centred Inquiry into the Spiritual and the Subtle,
Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. Toronto:McClelland
& Stewart.
James, W. (1912) Essays in Radical Empiricism, New York: Longmans, Green and Co.
Kelly, E.F., Crabtree, A. and Marshall, P. (2015) Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation
of Science and Spirituality, Rowman & Littlefield.
Koenig, H.G. (2012) Religion, spirituality, and health: The research and clinical implications.
ISRN Psychiatry, 2012.
Mastin, L. (2009) Available from
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html [Accessed 8 April
2016].
O’Murchu, D(2004) Quantum Theology, New York:The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Ornstein, R.E. (1986) The Psychology of Consciousness / Robert Ornstein. Penguin:
Harmondsworth, 1986.
Rousseau, D. (2012) Could Spiritual Realism Map a Scientifically Plausible Ontology?
Available from https://www.scimednet.org/system/files/ROUSSEAU-Spiritual-Realism-and-
Ontology.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2016].
Smart, N. (2000) Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall Stapp, H.P. (2011) Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating
ObserverSpringer Science & Business Media.
Tacey, D. (2004) The Spirituality Revolution, Hove:Brunner Routledge.
Tarnas, R. (1991) The Passion of the Western Mind, New York: Ballantine Books.
Walach, H. (2015) Secular Spirituality: The Next Step Towards Enlightenment. Studies,.
Wallace, B.A. (2013) Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic: A Manifesto for the Mind Sciences
and Contemplative Practice Columbia University Press.
24
Wallace, B.A. (2010) Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness
Columbia University Press.
Wallace, B.A. (2003) Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground Columbia University
Press.
Wheeler, J, (1994), At Home in the Universe. American Institute of Physics.
Zohar, D. & Marshal. I. (2000) SQ: Spiritual Intelligence-The Ultimate Intelligence, UK:
Bloomsbury Publishing